But I can guess what you said.
Lear, I mistyped. Our junior Captain STARTED his 11th year yesterday. But it is correct that AAI only has 480 +/- Captains senior to him. Or said differently our junior Captain is senior to 75% of all AAI pilots.
Hopefully that helps put in perspective what a windfall relative or DOH would be for you guys.
Have a good one. There's a whiskey with my name on it.
Gup
Thanks... ended up having beers instead (a friend's 40th bday party / 4th of July cookout combined), but might have that whiskey tonight. :beer:
Thanks for the info, helps to understand why relative is so upsetting to most of your pilots, but I still don't understand the angst against DoH. It seems to level the field considerably for your pilots while simultaneously making us sacrifice a significant amount of relative seniority in exchange for the SWAPA contract and working relationship.
To be specific, DoH is an 18% hit on my relative seniority. I lose my base out of that more than likely (depending how the system bid drops after integration), and take a hit on my upgrade from 18-24 months to 4-6 more years. (and no, I'm not including the money argument, I'm just talking about Quality of Life). I lose my ability to hold weekends and holidays off with my son and family, vacation bidding goes to crap weeks again, etc, etc.
Not that I am saying life would be bad, I obviously wanted to go to SWA for a reason and was willing to take that hit (although not all AAI pilots were), but the point I'm trying to make is that for most of us, Date of Hire *IS* a sacrifice for us. So it confuses us when people tell us that taking a hit on our Quality of Life for years to come before we get back to where we were *ISN'T ENOUGH* ? Really??
Sincerely, please help me understand how that's not enough of a "sacrifice", since some seem to believe that additional sacrifice over what we've already faced to get here is required to get there, even though a large portion of our list didn't ASK to get purchased.
And what do you tell THOSE people? The ones who didn't WANT to come to SWA, but are now being told they'll have to SIGNIFICANTLY sacrifice what they've achieved here to go to a carrier they never applied to?
I have really tried to take the high road with this but I have to speak my peace and I will leave this thread alone. When it comes down to it, you have to understand the we at SWA are very protective of what we have. To have someone with 50% less longevity think they are entitled to a position above us on the seniority list IS the entitlement we refer to. We HAVE worked longer and harder to get where we are. This is not to say anyone is lesser of an aviator at AAI. It means we put more into getting to our position WHERE WE ARE. It is no mystery AAI was plan b or c for a large part of your list. You cannot dispute that, if you do you are being disingenuous. Hell, I live in Atlanta and it was never even an option based on the working conditions there.
In closing, I am sorry if my rant offends my future family members. I am just trying to put into words what most of us think. I have been here 10 years, just like our buddy Ty. He, as well as others IMPLY they deserve more than their longevity will hold because they upgraded lightning fast at Airtran and to us it is ludicrous. If being a 737 CA is the only true career expectation we should all apply for XTRA air or Vision street captain spots. Fire Away! I have worked too hard for this.
Fair enough, and well-said, without threats or mud-slinging, I appreciate that, thank you. It's what makes the difference between an offending post and someone reasonably discussing their thoughts in a way that encourages debate.
Here's a counter-thought that has been percolating at the back of my head just wondering what the majority of SWA pilots would think about it (not that this is what ANY pilots at AAI would agree to, I don't speak for anyone, this is purely hypothetical):
You said that you don't believe anyone is entitled to a spot above their longevity on the SENIORITY LIST. So what would you guys think of an SLI that keeps everyone in their seats for 2-3 years but places them at their Date of Hire longevity on the ISL? Additionally, what would you think of an agreement where all the upgrades for the duration of that fence continued solely on the SWA side so as to more closely equalize the DoH gap by the time the fence came down?
You don't have tens of millions of dollars in training costs associated with a big displacement, it will take up to a year to integrate the fleet anyway and get the SWA training dept up to speed on how they want to operate and teach the 717 (half or 1/3 of the duration of the fence), you don't instantly p*ss off half the CA's at AAI, you cut the number down to only 50-100 CA's who are still "upside down" by the time the fence comes down, and everyone keeps their same bidding power while all this happens.
Additionally, how would you feel if the senior F/O's who were senior to our CA's by DoH were pay protected at CA rates until they upgraded as well?
I ask because that's how some similar arbitrations have gone, and I'm trying to figure out if it's really about the Date of Hire and money disparity as some have said, or if it's really just about the left seat. If all other equalizers are the same, your senior F/O's are pay protected at CA pay but still keep a better QoL from their bidding ability as a senior F/O, the final ISL doesn't permanently put our CA's senior to them with less longevity, and it all equalizes within a few years, then it shouldn't matter what seat they're in. Correct?
Again, just a hypothetical, trying to understand if that would be acceptable or not and why...
Thanks, and have a great weekend!
